Sunday, July 21, 2013

Danny Kingsley on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?

Danny Kingsley

This is the seventh Q&A in a series
exploring the current state of Open Access (OA). On
this occasion the questions are answered by Danny
Kingsley, Executive Officer of the Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG), an organisation founded at the end of last year by six Australian universities in order to
provide “a concerted and coordinated Australian voice in support of open
access.”

But it is the controversial OA Policy introduced on
April 1st by Research Councils UK (RCUK) that has attracted
the greatest attention (and opprobrium) within the OA movement, not least because
of its stipulation that researchers favour Gold over Green OA, and its
endorsement of Hybrid OA.

But how does the picture look outside
the US and Europe? I hope we can explore this in some of the Q&As in this
series. Today, Danny Kingsley provides a perspective from Australia. Prior to taking on her role at AOASG, Kingsley spent five years studying the OA situation in Australia for her PhD, and then four years as a repository
manager at the Australian National University (ANU), so she has a keen understanding of the OA scene
in Australia.

On the positive side, says Kingsley, the flood of international
statements about OA we have seen this year (e.g. here) has strengthened
the voice of those advocating for OA. And Australia is well placed to benefit
from this: All of its universities now have an institutional repository, and
both the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have
introduced OA mandates that favour Green OA.

On the negative side, says Kingsley, researchers' lack of
engagement with Open Access remains “a continual disappointment.” As a result,
she suggests, OA advocates need “to stop talking to ourselves and work out the
best way to engage the researchers.”

Unfortunately, however, this task has been made that much harder by the recommendations of the Finch Report (on which the
controversial RCUK Policy was based), and the consequent decision by RCUK to
favour Gold OA, and endorse Hybrid OA.

Indeed, Kingsley’s account suggests that, rather than being
a tipping point for OA, the RCUK Policy has impeded progress, not just in
the UK but globally. “The Finch/RCUK
decision to back and fund Gold Open Access including Hybrid has had
ramifications around the world with publishers tightening the deposit and
embargo rules for repositories,” she says. “While this is ostensibly to
encourage UK researchers to take the Gold OA option to comply with their rules
it affects everyone.”

Moreover, adds Kingsley, “Hybrid is tainting
Open Access because researchers often think this is what Open Access means and
are (understandably) upset and angry about the changes they feel are being
forced upon them.”

Whether the impact of Finch/RCUK is
being felt in the same way elsewhere, including in the developing world, will
perhaps become clearer in future interviews. As Kingsley acknowledges,
“Australia still aligns itself mostly with Europe and North America”.

It is worth noting, however, that Kingsley views OA in
a broader context than some. She suggests, for instance, that it be seen as a component part of a larger revolution that the research process needs to undergo. For instance she
says, changing the reward system, “such as including Open Access as something
that counts for assessment exercises, will be a definitive incentive to change
behaviour.”

However she adds, “the real game changer” (and which would encourage take-up of OA) would be to overhaul the reward
system used to incentivise researchers. “The publishers have been able to
maintain the status quo because the reward system backs the outdated and
inappropriate Journal Impact Factor as a
measure of quality.”

She adds, “We need to instead value
& reward article level metrics. A focus on these rather than the journal
not only makes it more difficult to game (as there are multiple factors) but it
also means there will be a push away from the journal as a measure of value.
That’s when we can really start looking at revolutionising the scholarly
communication system.”

To get the full picture on how
Kingsley views the current state of OA, what she thinks still needs to be done,
and where she believes the priorities should lie, please read the Q&A below.

Q: When and why did you become an OA advocate?

A: In 1995 I did my honours
thesis looking at attitudes amongst researchers to a move to electronic journals
— that was the year the World Wide Web came into broader public use. I worked
as a science journalist on graduation, and then a few years later press
releases started coming across my desk using the term ‘Open Access’. Some of
the names I had cited in my honours thesis were involved in this new movement —
like for instance Stevan
Harnad.

So
I decided the time had come to return to study. In 2004 I started my PhD
looking into the reasons why researchers support the idea of Open Access but
don’t engage with it, submitting in 2008. I began that research with a feeling
that Open Access made sense, and ended it as a vocal advocate for Open Access
both within my home institution and in Australia. Working subsequently for four
years as a university repository manager made me fully aware of the multitude
of small obstacles to the widespread uptake of Open Access across the community.

Many
of the barriers are embedded in administrative systems but challenges occur at
every level of the scholarly communication endeavour. Sometimes in the role of
advocate it feels like you are pulling a very heavy ship behind you.

Q:
What would you say have been the biggest achievements of the OA movement since
you became an advocate, and what have been the biggest disappointments?

A: Certainly all of the recent international
statements on Open Access that have been pouring out of the high end of town is
gratifying. It does give a much stronger voice to those who have been going
hoarse saying the same things repeatedly. Our two funding body mandates have
finally brought discussions about Open Access more into the mainstream in
Australia. But not all of these policies have been positive. The continuing
fallout from the Finch/RCUK emphasis on Gold Open Access demonstrates how
disappointing this decision has been to the Open Access community.

The
lack of engagement by the research community with Open Access is a continual
disappointment. My personal experience has found that one-on-one conversations
with people is highly effective, but clearly inefficient for large scale
implementation. Open access discussions happen within the library community.
This makes sense, librarians started the debate decades ago and continue to be
the on-the-floor practitioners of Open Access. But we need to stop talking to
ourselves and work out the best way to engage the researchers.

On
a personal level a huge disappointment in Australia has been a reluctance to take
seriously the broader issue of changes to the
scholarly communication system — there are no employed academics
researching in this area in Australia that I am aware of, let alone a
department or office of scholarly communication.

Q: There has always been a great deal of discussion (and
disagreement) about the roles that Green and Gold OA should play. In light of
recent developments (e.g. the OSTP Memorandum, the ARC
and NHMRC OA policies, the RCUK OA policy,
and the European Research Council Guidelines on OA) what would you say are the
respective roles that Green and Gold OA should be playing today?

A: The benefit of Green Open
Access is that it does not force academics to publish in a specific place —
they can continue to publish where they wish. Placing a copy of their work into
a repository means that the broader community can find out about the research.
(Disclosure statement — the AOASG, for whom I work, specifically supports Open
Access through deposit in repositories). Repositories are relatively inexpensive
to run, particularly, as in Australia, if it can be tied into a system that already
requires collection of all publications for funding reporting. Green Open
Access also allows access to a broad range of grey literature — an important
part of the academic discourse. Both the ARC & NHMRC policies favour Green.

Gold
Open Access offers an alternative way to publish work. Gold journals published
by fully OA commercial publishers — such as through PLoS and BioMed
Central, for example have demonstrated that Open Access journals can be
high impact. Thinking more broadly about the scholarly communication landscape,
some Gold journals are experimenting with new publishing models — RNA Biologyarticles require an accompanying explanatory
peer-reviewed wiki. Libre
is proposing publishing the reviews with the articles. The majority of OA
journals that are free to publish and free to read represent the academic
community taking back responsibility for the publication process.

Overall
there is room for both. It is unlikely there will be a wholesale change to Gold
Open Access, and even if this becomes the predominant model, this will not
happen overnight. Green not only gives us time to make these transitions, but
also offers options for a transformation of the way the community engages with
research outputs.

Q: What about Hybrid OA?

A: I do not support Hybrid Open
Access in any way. It is from my perspective indefensible. If the publisher of
a subscription journal feels that it would be good to have certain research
available Open Access then they should permit deposit of and immediate access
to the Accepted Version in a repository. Despite the repetition of the claim by
publishers about threats to their ‘sustainability’, there is no evidence that
this affects subscriptions. So the only explanation for offering the Hybrid
option is that it increases income for the publisher.

This
is why Open Access advocates refer to Hybrid Open Access as double-dipping. The
institution (in Australia almost fully supported by the taxpayer) pays twice —
first for the ‘opportunity’ to make a particular article Open Access, and again
for the subscription to the remainder of the journal. The Finch/RCUK rules have
not helped, as some publishers appear to be extending
their embargo periods to funnel more authors down the Hybrid path.

And
the costs are very high. It is not just that Hybrid APCs are consistently
higher than for fully OA journals, as recent evidence shows. But consider the
cost to an individual department — particularly one without external funding —
that publishes, say 20 papers a year. The approximately $60,000 they would have
to outlay on Hybrid publication precludes employing a research assistant or two.
Hybrid is tainting Open Access because researchers often think this is what Open
Access means and are (understandably) upset and angry about the changes they
feel are being forced upon them.

Q: How would you characterise the current state of OA, in Australia,
Asia, and internationally?

A: There certainly has been a big
increase in statements about Open Access from governments and large
organisations around the world. This indicates that there is a realisation at
the highest level that Open Access to research results is good for society.
Mandates are also on the increase amongst funders and institutions, with the
two primary Australian funding agencies, the ARC and NHMRC announcing their
policies in the last year. However publishers changing their copyright rules
are a constant problem for compliance, and pose some threat to the logistics of
Green Open Access. The Finch/RCUK decision is affecting the whole world as
publishers tighten their rules, extend their embargoes and try and funnel
authors into Hybrid.

But
there is a long way to go. In Australia we are well placed. Apart from the
formation of the Australian Open Access Support Group this year, we have the
infrastructure in place. All universities have a repository, we have full
collection of research output metadata, and in addition to the funder mandates several
research institutions also have them. But while we have a couple of exemplar
universities with a high percentage of full text articles in their repositories,
this is not replicated across the board. Many Australian universities have only
a small percentage of their current research available so there are still major
hurdles.

There
are some interesting things happening in the region, Japan is making some big
headway, for example mandating that all theses are available Open Access. But
Australia still aligns itself mostly with Europe and North America, rather than
engaging the local region. This is slowly changing.

Q: What still needs to be done, and by whom?

A: There needs to be activity on
several fronts. Firstly, comprehension of the issues around Open Access is
extremely poor amongst the academic community. As the people who do the work
and are inconvenienced by a lack of access, they potentially have a real power
to change things. As editors of journals they are in a strong position to
negotiate with their publishers — indeed there have been some successes in this
area recently. But while there is misinformation and indifference amongst this
group we will fail to have traction. So increasing awareness of the ‘whys’ and
‘hows’ about Open Access amongst the academics is paramount. And very
difficult.

On
an institutional level, having mandates is a very good first step. But this
needs to be within a broader context of the intellectual property policy. The Harvard model — which means
that work is published on the proviso that it is able to be deposited and made
available in the institution’s repository — changes the legal standing of the
research being produced from our institutions. This is a big ask, however.
Altering policies within institutions is a complex process and will only succeed
if accompanied with a concerted advocacy and information program.

Turning
to government, in Australia the majority of research funding originates from
the government. So changing the reward system, such as including Open Access as
something that counts for assessment exercises, will be a definitive incentive
to change behaviour.

Q: What in your view is the single most important task that
the OA movement should focus on today?

A: The real game changer will be altering
the reward system. The publishers have been able to maintain the status quo
because the reward system backs the outdated and inappropriate Journal Impact
Factor as a measure of quality. Apart from measuring the vessel (journal)
rather than the content (article), it is becoming clear that this type of
measure is being ‘gamed’, rendering this kind of assessment even less useful.

We
need to instead value & reward article level metrics. A
focus on these rather than the journal not only makes it more difficult to game
(as there are multiple factors) but it also means there will be a push away
from the journal as a measure of value. That’s when we can really start looking
at revolutionising the scholarly communication system.

And
tying Open Access to reward works. The UK Wellcome
Trust and the US NIH have both tightened
their funding rules to restrict full access to the funds or any further funds
until compliance with the Open Access policies is met. The University of Liege’s
repository ORBi has over 50,000 full text
items as a direct result of their
decision to only consider research that is available Open Access in
promotional & tenure applications.

Q: What does OA have to offer the developing world?

A: Ask not what does OA have to
offer the developing world, but what the developing world has to offer back. If
suddenly we have 100% of the world’s smart people able to see the latest
thinking and contributing to solutions for the big issues the world faces,
instead of the small proportion that happen to be in well-funded institutions,
the efficiency gains are almost incalculable.

But
there is another side to this. Obviously providing access to research outputs
increases the ability for researchers in the developing world to participate
more equitably. But if we were to move to a fully Gold Open Access model it
would mean researchers in smaller & less-resourced institutions go from a
situation where it is effectively ‘free’ to publish to one where it is ‘free’
to read. Even allowing for the fact that the majority of Gold journals do not
charge APCs, in a Gold world, a lack of funds restricts access to publishing
opportunities. For this reason Green trumps Gold in the situation of providing
access to researchers in developing countries.

Q: What are your expectations for OA in 2013?

A: There have already been many
statements and policies about Open Access released at high levels just in the
first half of this year. The proof will be in the implementation of these
policies. The Finch/RCUK decision to back and fund Gold Open Access including Hybrid
has had ramifications around the world with publishers tightening the deposit
and embargo rules for repositories. While this is ostensibly to encourage UK
researchers to take the Gold OA option to comply with their rules it affects
everyone. I expect that publishers will clamp down further on Green Open Access.
While this is depressing as an Open Access advocate, in one sense it does
indicate that more people are making their work available in this manner.

I
repeat, there is no evidence in existence to show that permitting immediate Green
Open Access has had any effect on publisher’s subscription levels. Frankly, I
would welcome a study showing empirical evidence either way. SAGE’s recent
decision to permit fully-Green OA, and Taylor & Francis’s decision to
indefinitely extend the Library and Information Science fully-Green trial both
offer excellent potential case studies. But another of my expectations is the
publishers won't release the related subscription data to answer this question
definitively.

Q: Will OA in your view be any less expensive than
subscription publishing? If so, why/how? Does cost matter anyway?

A: Yes of course cost matters,
but I am going to slightly sidestep this question. What do we mean by
‘expensive’? To whom? There have been many studies looking into the cost
benefits and challenges of Open Access, not least by Australia’s Professor John Houghton, and
I deflect to these which show that yes Open Access is less expensive.

But
on a broader scale, what happens if we change the scholarly communication
system to something that reflects what modern technologies can offer? Consider
just two issues in scholarly communication. A reward system that results in
such a large number of papers being submitted to a select few journals that
there can be a 95% rejection rate, and the related problem of the same paper being
reviewed many times as it moves from journal to journal. The wasted human
capital is immense.

Open
access offers a new way of approaching the publication endeavour. If the
current expenditure on access is redirected to publication then not only is
there universal access, but research productivity increases. And if we embrace
article level metrics, sharing research results fairly amongst the world’s
researchers, opening the conversation about research through open review and so
on, then the entire research process becomes immeasurably more efficient
worldwide. Surely that’s cost efficiency?

-----

Dr Danny Kingsley is the Executive
Officer of the Australian Open Access Support Group (http://aoasg.org.au) which aims to inform the discussions around Open
Access at a time of great change in this area. She is responsible for developing
the content on the website, including explainers, blogs and general information
about the topic. She runs a discussion list and Twitter feed (@openaccess_oz) as part of the outreach activities of the group.

Her previous role was for four years
as the Manager, Scholarly Communication and ePublishing at the Australian
National University. She was responsible for developing policies relating to
scholarly communication and Open Access, and rebuilt the DSpace repository prior to its July 2011 re-launch. During
the research phase of her PhD looking at the barriers to opening up
access to science publications Danny
worked part time with the Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories.

Danny worked as a science communicator for 15
years, including two years with ABC Science Online as a journalist for News in Science, and was also a co-producer of Health Matters. She has worked in TV, radio and print.

2 comments:

Green OA Embargoes: Just a Publisher Tactic for Delaying the Optimal and Inevitable [part 1 of 2]

Bravo to Danny Kingsley for her invaluable antipodean OA advocacy!

I think Danny is spot-on in all the points she makes, so these are just a few supplementary remarks:

1. The publishing industry is using Green OA embargoes and lobbying to try to hold OA hostage to its current inflated revenue streams as long as possible-- by forcing the research community to pay for over-priced, double-paid (and double-dipped, if hybrid) Fools Gold if it wants to have OA at all.

It's time for the research community to stop stating that it will stop mandating and providing Green OA if there's ever any evidence that it will cause subscription cancelations. Of course Green OA will cause cancelations eventually; and so it should.

Green OA will not only provide 100% OA but it will also force publishers to phase out obsolete products and services and their costs, by offloading all access-provision and archiving onto the worldwide nework of Green OA repositories.

Once subscriptions are made unsustainable by mandatory Green OA, journals will downsize and convert to post-Green Fair-Gold, in place of today's over-priced, double-paid (and double-dipped, if hybrid) Fools-Gold.

Green OA embargoes have one purpose, and one purpose only: to delay this optimal, inevitable, natural and obvious outcome for as long as possible.

Research is not funded, conducted, peer-reviewed and made public in order to provide or guarantee revenues for the publishing industry, but to be used, applied and built upon, to the benefit of the public that funds it.

Globally mandated Green OA will not only provide OA, but it will also force publishers to cut obsolete costs and downsize to just managing peer review. All access-provision and archiving will be done by the worldwide network of Green OA Institutional Repositories.

It's in order to delay that outcome that publishers are using every means at their disposal -- embargoing Green OA and lobbying against Green OA mandates with PRISM, the Research Works Act, the Finch Report and CHORUS -- to fend off Green OA as long as possible and force the research community instead toward over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped) Fools Gold if they want to have any form of OA at all.

2. There is a powerful tactical triad -- tried, tested and proven effective -- to moot publisher delay tactics (embargoes and lobbying) -- and that triad is for both funders and insitutions to:

(i) mandateimmediate deposit in institutional repositories, whether or not the deposit is made immediately OA,

(ii) designate repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publictions for institutional performance review (or national research assessment), and

(iii) implement the institutional repository's facilitated eprint request Button to tide over research access needs during any embargo.

3. The research community should resolutely resist publishers' attempt to imply that "Green OA" means "Delayed (embargoed) OA." It does not. OA means immediate, unembargoed access. It is publishers who are trying to impose embargoes, in order to delay OA and preserve their current inflated revenue streams for as long as possible, forcing authors to pay for grotesquely overpriced Fools Gold if they want immediate OA.

The immediate-deposit mandate (with the Button) immunizes against those tactics. "Delaying OA" is publishers' objective, against the interests of research, researchers, their universities, their funders, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, the developing world, journalists, and especially the general public who is funding the research. Immediate-deposits mandates are the way for the research community to ensure that the interests of research. Otherwise (I have said many times), it is the publishing tail continuing to wag the research dog.

4. OA Metrics will follow, not precede OA. The reason we do not have 100% OA yet is not because of bias against Gold OA journals. It is because of researcher passivity, publisher activism (embargoes and lobbying) and lack of clear information and understanding about OA and how to make it happen.

It is normal and natural that journals' quality and importance should be based on their prior track-record for quality and importance (rather than their cost-recovery model). New journals (whether OA or non-OA) first need to establish a track record for quality and importance. Besides the journal's track record and citation impact, however, we also have citation counts for individual authors and articles, and we are slowly also developing download counts and other metrics of research usage and impact. There will be many more OA metrics too -- but for that to happen, the articles themselves need to be made OA! And that is why mandating Green OA is the priority.